Laserfiche WebLink
b. Whether the RICD appropriation is for an appropriate reach of stream for the intended <br /> use. The Board, in making this finding, may consider, but is not limited to, the following <br /> factors: <br /> w) The Staff recommends keeping this language as if is because it tracks the statutory language. <br /> b Factors included here require staff to evaluate number of criteria it is not equipped to <br /> evaluate, such as parameters necessary to achieve a reasonable recreational experience. <br /> Determinations of water availability are province of the water court. Difficult to see how <br /> staff recommendations and Board determinations regarding most of these factors will avoid <br /> being arbitrary. (Aspen) <br /> b In determining appropriate stream reach the pertinent questions are 1)the nature of the <br /> recreational activity sought, 2) the length of reach necessary to achieve the intended use, 3) <br /> whether the proposed stream reach can be controlled for recreational purposes, and 4) <br /> whether the diversion can be adequately measured and administered in priority through the <br /> proposed stream reach. (CRWCD) <br /> i. The nature of the recreational activity for which the RICD is sought; <br /> ii. The length of, s: • • • the reach <br /> • • • , <br /> It, The Staff recommends rewording this factor, as suggested above, and moving the depth and <br /> rate of flow to Rule 7(e)(vi)as these factors are more related to maximum utilization than to <br /> whether the reach is appropriate. <br /> * This section appears to give CWCB authority to determine what constitutes the necessary <br /> • reach of stream to achieve a reasonable recreation experience. SB 216 does not suggests this <br /> authority, and the CWCB should defer to the applicant as to what constitutes a reasonable <br /> recreation experience as this will depend on nature of planned project. (Pueblo) <br /> b Revise to read "The length of the reach necessary to achieve the intended use." Wording in <br /> the Proposed Rules implies that the CWCB can substitute its own judgement for that of the <br /> applicant about reasonableness of intended use and amount of flow needed to achieve use. <br /> General Assembly asked CWCB to evaluateag strearn-14or-thp :^+�z:z ended_ <br /> use"not to determine reasonableness of use sought or amount of flow necessary. CWCB <br /> should base evaluation on the use intended by the applicant. (CRWCD) <br /> 1* The Sta', recommends deleting this factor as it is now repetitive of the introductory language <br /> in Rule 'r <br /> b This sec i(, f oes to heart of issue, whether identified stream reach can be controlled by an <br /> RICD. e believe the purpose of this inquiry is to limit RICD rights to portion of the stream <br /> that is or can be actively controlled or manipulated for recreational purposes,regardless of <br /> whether any particular application would meet the legal requirements for a "diversion." <br /> (CRWCD)- - - -- - <br /> Whether the RICD can be adequately measured and administered through the <br /> proposed reach; <br /> • <br /> 11 <br />